In the United States, professional sports are an American way of life and culture. These leagues started out as entertainment for all of its spectators, but progressed into Abig business@ which has allowed team owners to prosper tremendously. Initially, majority of the different professional sports team owners used various methods to restrict players= mobility and salaries and/or attempted to monopolize the sport in some aspect. However, through the judicial courts of the federal government, antitrust laws apply to all professional sports, except baseball. The antitrust statutes applicable to professional sports are within the Sherman Act.

No area of law has impacted professional sports over the past thirty years than antitrust. (Roberts, 135) First enacted by Congress in 1890, the Sherman Act was to curb concentrations of power that interfered with trade and reduced economic competition. These laws are the major mechanisms available to affect change in sports. (Champion, 52) Various groups have used the antitrust laws: e.g., players, owners, colleges, etc. The goal of these antitrust plaintiffs was to achieve some result at the expense of management, whether it

do other professional athletes, e.g., football and basketball players), along

was for better wages, better conditions, a new location or less control (Champion, 53). These cases were applied to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

As in International Boxing, other cases by professional sports teams and leagues challenged the Court=s limitation of the antitrust exemption to only baseball. The Court=s ruling in these cases clearly pointed out its refusal to extend its rationale to other professional sports who nature was undistinguishable from baseball=s. (Synder, 38) In fact the court held that other professional team sports engaged in interstate commerce and were subject to the federal antitrust laws. Radovich v. National Football League (352 U.S. 445 1957), American Football League v. National Football League, (205 F. Supp. 60 1962), Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc. (144 App. DC, 444 F.2d 931, 1971), Washington Professional Basketball Corp. v. National Basketball Assoc. (147 F.Supp.154, 1956), Haywood v. National Basketball (401 U.S. 1204, 1971), Boston Professional Hockey Assoc. v. Cheevers (348 F. Supp. 261, 1972, and Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Assoc. (359 F.Supp. 1260, 1973) The Courts refused!

In 1882, the American Association League was formed. This league competed for many of the National League=s best players. However, by 1883, both leagues recognized their similar interest and negotiated a truce. Both leagues negotiated in a so-called National Agreement Athe first official baseball document to include the reserve provisions.@ (Synder, 15) Thus, professional baseball became a one league monopoly. (Synder, 11) The reserve clause=s success expanded the players to 11 and by 1887 to 14 players. (Synder, 15)

The formation of the Player=s National League put the National League into a dilemma. The League was faced with the possibility of losing their teams to financial disaster. They reacted by forming a three-man war committee led by Albert Spalding. During the 1890 season a bitter war embarked between the newly formed National Player=s League and the National League and American Association League. Both leagues assumed the Player=s National League would fold like the National Association previously had, but they assumed wrong. The Player=s National League held their own and completed its first season as a league. However, due to internal division and financial troubles, the Player=s League was forced to disband. (Synder, 17) Having survived the war with the Player=s League, the National League and the American Association League owners formed a new National Agreement to direct their affairs. Within the agreement, the reserve clause was continued in the form of Aan option to renew@ clause. The sale system was also maintained. (Synder, 17)

Although remanded back to the District Court for trial, the case never made it to court. A week before the case was scheduled to be brought before the Court, Organized Baseball settled with Gar(Wolohan, 356) Organized Baseball received a scare in Gardella. However, the second case of the baseball=s Supreme Court Trilogy, Toolson v. New York Yankees. (346 U.S. 356, 1953), show how indicatively the courts have treated Organized Baseball=s antitrust immunity.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Sherman Act, Supreme Court, National League, Amother Trusts@, Organized Baseball, Baseball Clubs, Federal Baseball, National Association, Federal League, White Sox, antitrust laws, organized baseball, national league, supreme court, professional sports, reserve clause, professional baseball, federal league, sherman act, federal baseball, federal antitrust laws, united supreme court, player=s national league, baseball scope federal, scope federal antitrust,
Approximate Word count = 4828
Approximate Pages = 19 (250 words per page double spaced)